|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I really don't think it's going to make that much of a difference in terms of survivability. It did for most LRBs over the years. More than two engines is a great way to ensure you don't lose a bomber to engine failure if it gets shot up somewhere and has 4000 miles to fly home. mobby_6kl posted:What if you mounted 8 of them in 4 pods, hmm? gently caress, why didn't someone think of that.
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2010 22:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:49 |
|
|
Muffinpox posted:It did for most LRBs over the years. More than two engines is a great way to ensure you don't lose a bomber to engine failure if it gets shot up somewhere and has 4000 miles to fly home. Thats why you equip it with 2 GE90-115's so it makes nearly double the thrust as the current configuration so if you lose one it can still land, take off, and fly a normal route on one engine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2010 22:47
|
|
|
OptimusMatrix posted:Thats why you equip it with 2 GE90-115's so it makes nearly double the thrust as the current configuration so if you lose one it can still land, take off, and fly a normal route on one engine. You can do it with 4 engines too and have 50% available thrust when someone takes out two engines on your slow, fat, loitering plane instead of 0%. We could have 2 engines and be fine but you don't really want to rely on "eh, it will probably be ok" on combat equipment. Also, a dreamliner can redirect on a long trip if something goes wrong, theoretically a B-52 might have 4400 miles until they have anywhere to land. Muffinpox fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Jun 2, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2010 23:42
|
|
|
OptimusMatrix posted:Thats why you equip it with 2 GE90-115's so it makes nearly double the thrust as the current configuration so if you lose one it can still land, take off, and fly a normal route on one engine. They'd probably have to redesign the wings to mount them further inboard to do something like that. I can see the Buff having severe control problems running on one engine anywhere near the current inboard engine location. It's still halfway out the massive wing. Edit: It will never have just two engines, I can definitely see 4 when the time comes for the B-52 to get reengined, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 00:16
|
|
|
When they update the airframe, just make the landing gear longer so you can put pods with 2 GE90-115 in them, so the plane has 8 GE90-115s. That should be overkill enough for anyone!
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 01:31
|
|
|
If I had any photoshops skills there'd be a picture in this post of a B-52 with the entire top and bottom of both wings packed with GE90's. And I'd fly that bitch to the MOON. Edit: And on the horizontal AND vertical stabilizers. And on the sides of the fuselage like on an MD80. And one in the tail like a DC-10. And gently caress it, one on each wingtip. ApathyGifted fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Jun 3, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 02:06
|
|
|
gently caress that, just strap wings and a cockpit to a GE90. "My fuselage makes 115k lbf, now what?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 02:18
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:
[Mods] You put WHAT on your plane? Stupid poo poo we've seen people put on their planes
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 02:44
|
|
|
I think four CFM56-5A @ 22000 to 26500 lbs thrust would do the trick.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 03:17
|
|
|
The big issue with replacing 8 small engines with 2 big ones is that when an engine fails you need to be able to correct the yaw with rudder. It would be a massive undertaking to modify the b-52 to fly with just two engines. As you reduce speed for landing the rudder becomes less effective and you approach what is called the VMC which is the velocity of minimum control. If you have a failed engine and dip below that speed you lose directional control of the plane. If you have 4 engines you can probably shoot an approach with 2 and you just idle the opposite one to the one that has failed and remain in control. If you have just two huge engines then the plane may have as much trust with one engine as it had with 8 before but if you cannot control it in a safe manner than its not worth the effort.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 03:24
|
|
|
Couldn't the survivability with two engines be improved by using the spare wing space to mount a few air-to-air missiles?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 03:24
|
|
|
Less Airliners.net-style faggotry (ie. Let's fantasize about putting GE90s on loving everything that flies!!!), more discussion about aircraft.Nuclear Tourist posted:Saab geek checking in. Stole some pictures from airliners.net. The Viggen was a neat bit of design to meet a very difficult set of performance criteria. The Swedish air force wanted a fighter-bomber that was capable of operating out of their highway dispersal bases (meaning, it needed to takeoff/land in less than 4000 feet of runway), yet be a step forward in capability from both the J32 Lansen and the J35 Draken. Compounding the problem was that many of the nations with technology to build such an aircraft in the 1960s were largely unwilling to share their technology with the Swedes. As such, the Viggen took rather large amounts of commercially available parts and integrated them into their new aircraft; the Volvo RM8 engine, for example, is a license-built Pratt and Whitney JT8D (the exact engine found on early Boeing 737s and Douglas DC-9s) with a locally-designed afterburner added. Having Volvo design a special afterburner for the engine also allowed the inclusion of a truly unique feature in a fighter aircraft - reverse thrust. The Viggen is one of the only fighters ever to have this feature, but it was necessary to meet runway requirements. Here's a video of a Viggen in action (and using its thrust reverser): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11-osaKapEI Nuclear Tourist posted:They make civilian aircraft too, but really, who cares about those! I do. When I was in college, I worked on a project that necessitated talking quite a bit with Saab's civilian aircraft arm. Even though I wasn't a customer, they treated me with a level of respect you would expect was reserved for customers only (which is a lot more than I can say for other airframers), and sent be a bunch of swag. In fact, I'm using the (well-worn) Saab mousepad they sent me right now 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 03:36
|
|
|
LOO posted:I think four CFM56-5A @ 22000 to 26500 lbs thrust would do the trick. I wouldn't be surprised if a CFM56 variant is what finally ends up replacing the TF-33s. That's exactly what happened to the KC-135. And foreign military 707 sales (ie, foreign E-3s).
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 05:08
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Having Volvo design a special afterburner for the engine also allowed the inclusion of a truly unique feature in a fighter aircraft - reverse thrust. The Viggen is one of the only fighters ever to have this feature, but it was necessary to meet runway requirements. Interesting. I wonder if there was any thought to tactical use of Reverse Thrust? "Oh poo poo, bogey on my six, lets see if he can stay there if I slam it in Reverse!" (eyeballs pop out).
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 05:39
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I wouldn't be surprised if a CFM56 variant is what finally ends up replacing the TF-33s. That's exactly what happened to the KC-135. And foreign military 707 sales (ie, foreign E-3s). I change my mind, the CFM56-5A is too weak. I think you'd need at least the the CFM65-5C at 34000 lbf. Better yet, the Pratt & Whitney F117-PW-100 delivers 40,440 lbf with the added advantage that the C-17 Globemaster III has this same engine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 05:42
|
|
|
jandrese posted:Interesting. I wonder if there was any thought to tactical use of Reverse Thrust? "Oh poo poo, bogey on my six, lets see if he can stay there if I slam it in Reverse!" (eyeballs pop out). Haven't you seen top gun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 05:53
|
|
|
I may be repeating myself, but designing aircraft to work from fairly primative conditions is severely underrated. Sourcing off the shelf parts ain't bad, either. (Er, sorry, mr.chips...) A B-52 with 2 GE 90s mounted overtop the wing behind the cockpit, like on an An-72. It might generate extra lift, too, thanks to the Coandă effect(?).  Emergency ejection systems might need a do-over though
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 07:23
|
|
|
MrChips posted:I do. When I was in college, I worked on a project that necessitated talking quite a bit with Saab's civilian aircraft arm. Even though I wasn't a customer, they treated me with a level of respect you would expect was reserved for customers only (which is a lot more than I can say for other airframers), and sent be a bunch of swag. In fact, I'm using the (well-worn) Saab mousepad they sent me right now Well that was extremely nice of them. I wish I was smart enough to be an engineer 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 09:17
|
|
|
MrChips posted:I do. When I was in college, I worked on a project that necessitated talking quite a bit with Saab's civilian aircraft arm. Even though I wasn't a customer, they treated me with a level of respect you would expect was reserved for customers only (which is a lot more than I can say for other airframers), and sent be a bunch of swag. In fact, I'm using the (well-worn) Saab mousepad they sent me right now Having flown on them a few times with Swiss (i.e. crossair) back in the day, I love Saab 2000s. Really nice passenger experience - loud as gently caress, but it's a prop.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 10:18
|
|
|
I guess i took it a bit too far...
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 10:39
|
|
|
Nuclear Tourist posted:Well that was extremely nice of them. I wish I was smart enough to be an engineer
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 10:49
|
|
|
LobsterboyX posted:I guess i took it a bit too far... No, I'd say you nailed it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2010 00:21
|
|
|
This is the way airshows should be done, live ordinance and all. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmseXJ7DV4c
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2010 18:23
|
|
|
This is somewhat recent and it was live fire. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiYDP74HIEs One of my favourite aircraft of my youth
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2010 19:02
|
|
|
Those had to be blanks, or at least I hope they were. If they were live rounds he would have lobbed those shells miles as he was still firing when pulling up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2010 20:38
|
|
|
slidebite posted:This is the way airshows should be done, live ordinance and all. The Hustler is the best plane, listen to that bastard go!
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2010 21:08
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:The Hustler is the best plane, listen to that bastard go! The Hustler is even more awesome because of how they tested the ejection seats. Due to the high speeds the B-58 could reach, there was concern that conventional ejection seats wouldn't be survivable if used at Mach 2, so an "ejection capsule" which surrounded the seats was devised to protect the crew. For reasons I've never seen explained, the ejection capsules were tested by strapping a live (and presumably tranquilized) bear into the seat, and then firing it off to see if the occupant survived. I just love the mental image of someone then having to open the capsule, praying that they weren't going to be greeted by a pissed off bear when they did so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2010 21:20
|
|
|
Here is a picture of said bear and ejection capsule. Looking at those capsules though, I've gotta wonder about leg/feet room. Is the pilot supposed to suck his legs in when he punches it? Because it looks to me like he'd lose his feet if he didn't (or, more likely I guess, the capsule wouldn't close properly).
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2010 21:25
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Here is a picture of said bear and ejection capsule. From what I've read, the capsules were configured with bars that automatically pulled the occupants' legs into a fetal position as part of the ejection sequence. The F-104 used a similar system that required the pilots to wear spurs on the back of their boots. The spurs attached to sockets in the ejection seat, which were in turn attached to cables. When the pilot ejected, the cables were automatically retracted into the seat, pulling the pilots' feet back in order to make sure that a flailing leg wasn't amputated by slamming into something upon ejection.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2010 21:33
|
|
|
Which is probably why they used a bear, depending on age or size they are probably a good representation of the human form.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2010 21:38
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:From what I've read, the capsules were configured with bars that automatically pulled the occupants' legs into a fetal position as part of the ejection sequence. That makes sense, thanks! quote:Which is probably why they used a bear, depending on age or size they are probably a good representation of the human form. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2010 21:52
|
|
|
slidebite posted:This is the way airshows should be done, live ordinance and all. Hell yeah. I was at an Airpower Demonstration at Creech in 2007. It was hot as balls, but loving awesome to actually see something beyond the typical airshow demos. I'm sure I'll miss some of the aircraft represented, but there were F-117s, B-52s, B-1s, a B-2, (I think the B-2 was the only one that didn't drop), F-22s, a pseudo-intercept between F-15s and F-16s (all they launched were flares, but they were turning and burning right overhead low enough to see the aggressor paint scheme), A-10s launching rockets and firing the GAU-8 from overhead while a pair of HH-60s recovered a "survivor" about 100 yrds from the bleachers. Oh, and they had a live Predator feed from directly above, and the drat thing was too high to see. All in all, it was well worth the drive from Nellis (we were there for a Flag or something), and our near-death experience when our 15-pax lost all steering due to metal fatigue and the actual snapping of the steering rack minutes after leaving the interstate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2010 22:13
|
|
|
slidebite posted:I hope they dressed the bear up as a pilot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2010 22:17
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:Yeah, a Russian one, this could have resulted in a pretty good Hartlepool Monkey situation should some rednecks have found it. Something like that happened when the CIA decided to train Taiwanese pilots to fly U-2 missions over China in the 1950's through 70's. The entire training program was kept classified (the aircraft itself was still secret when it started), which lead to an interesting incident in Cortez, Colorado. On August 3, 1959, a Taiwanese pilot on a training mission experienced a total engine failure over Colorado at night, but the pilot was able to dead-stick the airplane into the Cortez airport (due to its' runway lights being on), despite it not appearing on his charts. After the airplane landed, the airport manager came out to see what the hell had just showed up on his ramp, only to be met by a figure wearing a space suit gesturing and yelling "Quick! get gun, guard airplane! Very Secret!" in heavily accented English. For his actions in saving the still-secret aircraft, the USAF awarded the pilot the Distinguished Flying Cross, but I'd have loved to have seen the look on the face of the airport manager when the incident happened.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2010 00:17
|
|
|
out of curiosity, how many of you guys are planning to make the trek up (or down, in some cases) to Oshkosh for the EAA show this year? I go every year with my dad (also a pilot) and it is always amazing
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2010 03:30
|
|
|
I haven't been in 16 years. I'd love to go again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2010 03:46
|
|
|
threepac posted:out of curiosity, how many of you guys are planning to make the trek up (or down, in some cases) to Oshkosh for the EAA show this year? I go every year with my dad (also a pilot) and it is always amazing I've made it a few times. Generally when Rutan rolls out something big. Saw the Voyager (when I was about 7), Proteus, the WK1 and SS1 and Global Flier, and last year the White Knight II. The WK2 talk was awesome, apparently without the space ship mounted, the WK2 is a span-loaded wing with a near 1:1 thrust ratio and rated for 8G's. 8G's isn't when the airframe brakes, it's just when the bolts that hold the engines sheer off. That makes it, in theory, one of the worlds best, and certainly the worlds largest aerobatics platform. They were still working the flight envelope last year, and flew it pretty conservatively, but they might have something to show this year. Apparently WK2 will also fly if it breaks in half down the middle according to computer simulations. Unfortunately only the right side has controls, so the left hull is on its own. Bummed I'll be on the wrong side of the planet this year. Here are a few pictures from last year: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bertreiheld/sets/72157621770389873/ [edit] Aaaand what the hell, here are some scans of a bunch of 50's and 60's vintage slides a friends grandfather took while he was a test engineer out at Wright Patterson: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bertreiheld/sets/72157622871828572/ And some vietnam pictures my dad took: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bertreiheld/sets/72157622226505774/ Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 07:38 on Jun 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2010 07:31
|
|
|
The one and only time I went to the EAA air show, I was 13 and we flew there with my CAP buddies on a C-130. In-loving-credible experience for a kid. To boot, it was the 50th anniversary of the air force and the show was goddamn astonishing. Got to see a Blackbird fly-by, a B-2 fly-by, and tons of other poo poo. The fly-bys were hilarious because they completely cleared the lines for the port-a-potties. I also got Chuck Yeagers autograph, but I left it in the hotel in Greenbay. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2010 07:50
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Here are a few pictures from last year: Thanks for these, I love the vintage shots.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2010 01:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:49 |
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:I also got Chuck Yeagers autograph, but I left it in the hotel in Greenbay. How could you leave it? I would have been clutching it in my hand with a big grin for like a year straight.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2010 02:32
|
|